Molinari defends the right to property against the socialists who want to overthrow it, and the conservatives who defend it poorly (1849)Cache
Molinari defends the right to property against the socialists who want to overthrow it, and the conservatives who defend it poorly (1849)
Who is it going to be? The pro-corporate, pro-Tar Sands, pro-imperialism, pro-austerity, pro-inequality, pro-etcetera-lots of bad things Liberals?
Or the pro-corporate, pro-Tar Sands, pro-imperialism, pro-austerity, pro-inequality, pro-racist, homophobic, christo-fascist Conservatives?
Or the semi-pro-corporate, pro-Fracking, semi-pro-imperialism, excluded by our electoral system NDP?
Or the pro-corporate, pro-Tar Sands Greens?
Or the racist fuckwads of shit-head Maxime Bernier's Canadian National Socialist Party?
Let's face it; these parties are representative of just how fucked our society is. We're dominated by capitalism, which at its base is an inhuman system. We're a society based upon the theft of Native lands. We're a cultural and economic colony of the USA. (At least English Canada is, culturally.) And, there's a lot of stupid, or ignorant, or both people in this country. Racist, deluded, hypocritical, selfish.
Perhaps all those activists who don't care for electoral politics are right. Perhaps their extra-parliamentary marches, demos, forums, websites, actions, etc., are the way to go. Except for the fact that they've shown themselves to be pretty much useless. Occasionally every party but the Conservatives (and sometimes even the Conservatives) feel obliged to mouth words to make people feel good about them. But does anything ever really change? There are some limits on the depredations of the oligarchy, but will it be enough to stave off the ecological nightmare that is looming over us?
I think we need to articulate a clear, achievable vision for this country. One that speaks to individuals' self-interests while also putting a halt to our more insane, destructive behaviour. And this must be accompanied by a clear plan for how to get there. Everything else is just spinning wheels.
OTTAWA—Six party leaders squared off in a sometimes frenzied, sometimes humorous, sometimes confusing debate in Gatineau, Que. Monday night.
While there was plenty of substantial (and relatively honest) disagreements on policy and politics over the course of the two-hour debate, the Star catalogued a few questionable claims from all six party leaders taking part in Monday’s debate.
Here they are, in the order the leaders’ fielded questions Monday night.
Justin Trudeau, Liberal leader
The claim: Trudeau said the Liberals have brought Canada “three quarters” of the way to its emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement, which is 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The facts: The latest national tally of emissions is from 2017. It says Canada emitted 716 million tonnes of greenhouse gas that year — just two per cent lower than in 2005. Moreover, the federal government projects that measures in the Liberal climate plan — including the carbon price, methane regulations and more — will reduce emissions to about 592 million tonnes by 2030. That’s only about 20 per cent below 2005 levels, or two thirds of the way to the target. The Liberals claim, however, that future technological improvement and impacts of incoming public transit expansions and more will ensure Canada closes the gap and exceeds the 2030 target.
Jagmeet Singh, NDP leader
The claim: Singh accused Trudeau’s Liberals of giving away $14 billion to big corporations so they could buy jets and limousines.
The facts: Last November, the Liberals announced in their fall economic update that they would spend $14 billion on a slew of tax measures for Canadian businesses. These measures allowed companies that invest in “clean energy” to immediately write off spending on new equipment and machinery, while other businesses could now write off capital spending more quickly. These changes were explicitly designed, the Liberals said, to boost manufacturing and clean energy production. The NDP has attacked the measures as irresponsible corporate giveaways ever since, claiming it would help big businesses buy more jets and limos.
Andrew Scheer, Conservative leader
The claim: “We’re going to pay for those (tax cuts and credits) by cutting corporate welfare and reducing Canada foreign aid budget by 25 per cent.”
The facts: Scheer has proposed cutting foreign aid and reviewing “corporate welfare” to find $3 billion in savings per year. But Conservatives have already announced spending that exceeds those savings, according to independent costing of their promises by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
Verdict: Misleading. The two cuts Scheer mentions, if fully implemented, would go some of the way to paying for their spending — but wouldn’t cover the whole bill.
Elizabeth May, Green leader
The claim: May defended her party’s “fully costed” election platform, and said it was approved as responsible by former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.
The facts: Initially, Page and his team at the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Fiscal Studies and Democracy gave the Greens a failing grade in all three categories of assessment: transparency, “realistic economic and fiscal assumption,” and “responsible fiscal management.” Days later, after receiving more information about their assumptions from the party, Page revised his assessment to give the party a passing grade. However, the institute still found the party failed on fiscal responsibility, because of the uncertainty surrounding the dramatic changes the party is proposing in the short term.
Verdict: Misleading without context.
Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc Québécois leader
The claim: Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet accused the Conservatives of speaking against Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, in English Canada but saying they would “protect” the law in Quebec.
The facts: For his part, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has consistently said — in English and French — that a Conservative government would not intervene in court challenges against the law. Scheer’s Quebec lieutenant, Alain Reyes, told reporters Sunday that electing a Conservative government would “impede Justin Trudeau from contesting Bill 21.”
Verdict: Misleading. The Conservatives’ position has been relatively clear on Bill 21 — they would not intervene.
Maxime Bernier, People’s Party of Canada leader
The claim: “Canada receives more immigrants per capita than any other Western country.”
The facts: According to 2015 figures from the World Economic Forum, Canada does have a higher percentage of immigrants compared to other Western countries — but not the most. Australia (28.2 per cent) had a higher percentage than Canada (21 per cent). But in terms of absolute numbers, Canada ranks below a number of countries in the number of immigrants.
Alex Boutilier is an Ottawa-based reporter covering national politics. Follow him on Twitter: @alexboutilier
Alex Ballingall is an Ottawa-based reporter covering national politics. Follow him on Twitter: @aballinga
OTTAWA— A two-hour election debate Monday saw federal party leaders clash over ethics, climate change and the economy but saw no one immediately emerge as the clear winner, although they slung one-liners, insults and criticisms across the stage as Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s rivals sought to stake a claim to his job as prime minister.
The English debate got off to a hot and bitter start between front-runners Trudeau and Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer after a question from the audience about how each leader would represent Canada’s values and interests on the international stage.
Scheer immediately attacked Trudeau as a “phoney and a fraud” as he challenged the Liberal leader’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair, energy projects, and his economic record. “Justin Trudeau pretends to stand up for Canada,” Scheer said. “He cannot even remember how many times he put blackface on.”
“He’s always wearing a mask,” Scheer continued, pointing to Trudeau’s claims to be an advocate of Indigenous reconciliation, feminism and the middle class.
“You’re a phoney and you’re a fraud and you do not deserve an opportunity to govern this country,” he charged.
The leaders of the progressive parties fought to stake out turf on environmental and everyday concerns of Canadians, while the conservative leaders fought over immigration, pipelines and deficits.
In a second direct challenge between the two main contenders, Scheer turned to attack Trudeau over his failure to present a platform that had been completely costed by the parliamentary budget officer, and over the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Trudeau countered that his platform was costed, and that the Conservatives haven’t presented their entire policy book. On SNC-Lavalin, he said Scheer did not realize the job of a prime minister is to fight for Canadians jobs.
New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh jumped in: “What we have here is Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Scheer arguing for who’s worse for Canada,” he said.
The debate marked the first time all six leaders shared a stage. It devolved into a confusing free-for-all at times, but also had moments of collegiality.
Scheer and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May praised Singh for handling incidents of racism in the campaign with grace and class. Singh was accosted by a man in Montreal last week who told him to cut off his turban so he would “look like a Canadian.”
Trudeau agreed Singh had handled racism with “eloquence ... but I’m the only one on the stage that said yes, the federal government may have to intervene” in a court challenge of a Quebec law that prohibits some public servants from wearing visible symbols of their religious faiths.
“Every single day of my life is challenging people who think that you can’t do things because of the way you look,” Singh shot back. “Every single day of my life I channel people who feel that as well.”
Singh said the fact he’s in the race is a challenge to Quebecers to see past his religious garb. “I am running to be prime minister of this country,” he said. “I am going to Quebec and telling people that I want to be your prime minister.”
But later, Singh told reporters that, as prime minister, he might intervene if the case went to the Supreme Court.
There were moments of levity too. In fending off criticisms on the right and left, Trudeau twice called the NDP leader “Mr. Scheer,” prompting laughter. “I’m very, very different from Mr. Scheer,” Singh replied.
When a moderator later also called him “Mr. Scheer,” Singh cracked that “a lot of people are getting me mixed up,” to laughter from the audience. “I wore a bright orange turban on purpose today.”
Singh was the easily the most personable and relaxed leader onstage, and his supporters claimed he’d “won” the night.
People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier was challenged on his social media posts, which described diversity as a cult and called environmental leader Greta Thunberg “mentally unstable.”
“We don’t want our country to be like other countries in Europe where they have a huge difficulty to integrate their immigrants,” Bernier said, prompting Trudeau to claim that Bernier says publicly what Scheer thinks privately.
Singh called Bernier out, saying, “You could have just said, ‘Hey man, I messed up’ because those are pretty horrible tweets.”
Scheer said that Bernier, a former Conservative cabinet minister, was someone who used to believe in an immigration policy that was “fair, orderly and compassionate.
“Now you are making your policy based on trying to get likes and retweets from the darkest parts of Twitter,” Scheer said.
Trudeau was the target in the English debate more than he had been in last week’s French debate. He was taken to task by Bernier, Scheer and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet for fighting with provinces.
Scheer portrayed Trudeau’s carbon-pricing plan as a tax that would raise the price of cost of living, which Trudeau disputed.
He said he’d reversed the pattern of the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper, whom he accused of refusing to work with the provinces.
But he acknowledged “fighting the defining issue of our time” with some provinces because Alberta Premier “Jason Kenney and (Ontario Premier) Doug Ford, and other Conservative premiers don’t want to do anything on climate change and we need a government in Ottawa that is going to fight them and fight for Canadians.”
May said the Liberal goal for cutting emissions is a “target for losing the fight against climate change,” and she repeatedly challenged Scheer for having no climate action targets.
Singh got off one of the best lines of the night as Trudeau and Scheer bickered over climate change: “Ladies and gentlemen, you do not have to choose between Mr. Delay and Mr. Deny.”
At times, the format choked discussions among the two leading contenders as a cacophony of voices drowned out the debate.
With polls showing a close race between the Liberals and Conservatives, Scheer and Trudeau took direct aim at each other when they could, with Trudeau grilling Scheer in the last half-hour over his position on abortion. Trudeau had tried to stay above the fray, adopting a measured and at times oddly low-key stance, but late in the evening exhibited more fire.
He took Scheer to task over backing Conservative candidates who have pledged to take away a woman’s right to choose. Scheer said while he was personally against abortion, the “laws of access” to abortion services have not changed in Canada in 30 years under Liberal or Conservative governments, and would not change under a government led by him.
Singh jumped in, saying, “A man has no position in a discussion on a woman’s right to choose, let me clear on that.”
Singh and Blanchet targeted May for failing to rule out working with Scheer’s Conservatives.
On Indigenous issues, Scheer was challenged for resisting the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights and its requirement that development projects have the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous people. May told Scheer the Canadian constitution requires it, and it doesn’t mean you say “we’ll consult you until you agree with us.”
The debate, organized by a group of media organizations that included the Toronto Star, CBC and CTV, is the first of two this week. A French debate is scheduled for Thursday night.
Tonda MacCharles is an Ottawa-based reporter covering federal politics. Follow her on Twitter: @tondamacc
Bruce Campion-Smith is an Ottawa-based reporter covering national politics. Follow him on Twitter: @yowflier
If anyone was wondering why Alberta’s premier spent the weekend campaigning for the Conservatives in Toronto’s suburbs, 3,000 kilometres away from his province, all they had to do was watch Jason Kenney work the room at a Chinese dim sum event on...
RICHMOND HILL, ONT. — If anyone was wondering why Alberta’s premier spent the weekend campaigning for the Conservatives in Toronto’s suburbs, 3,000 kilometres away from his province, all they had to do was watch Jason Kenney work the room at a Chinese...
I'm seeing rather a lot of negative posts on Facebook as regards Greta Thunberg and kids in general. The thrust of the argument, if you can call it that, is that they enjoy all these gadgets that they're wedded to, all of which consume power. Because of that, and their stance on climate change, they should give up the gadgets and go to live in a cave. It's a pure Tu Quoque fallacy.
The people posting these memes seem ignorant of the fact that there's no need to eschew gadgets at all, or cars, if we move to renewable power generation. Simple really, when you stop to engage your brain - which they rarely do.
Another argument is that if you want to give up eating beef, you're a hypocrite because you wear leather shoes. Stopping to think, once again, shoes last several years or more - a steak lasts till tomorrow's dinner time. It will require far fewer cattle to keep me in shoe leather than steaks. Let's use the meat only of cattle that are used for the production of leather and use less plastic.
While on the subject of gadgets, why the hell is my TV called a Smart TV when I have to spend ages using a keyboard on the screen with a cursor to type the letters of a search in iPlayer, Netflix or any of the other myriad catch-up services? If the TV is so smart, why can't I just talk to it and tell it to look for a particular TV programme, to switch on or off, to change the brightness or to change the volume? That would be snart.
Daily Brexit Bulletin:
Boris' speech to conference was stirring and inspirational stuff, but was the usual electioneering promises devoid of feasibility and logic. How he's going to plug the National Debt, overcome the 6% hit on GDP that's forecast for Brexit and spend, spend, spend on infrastructure and tax cuts is a mystery. These buggers have been in power for 11 years, for God's sake, and have had plenty of time to correct their mismanagement of public services. Then to wax lyrical about the NHS when all and sundry know the Conservatives would like nothing more than to sell the whole thing off is pure theatre.
As for a 2nd referendum on what was meant to be the best deal ever (certainly better than being in the EU) and in the quickest time ever, he said it would destroy people's confidence in democracy. No - my confidence in British democracy was trashed by the bare-faced lies, Facebook shenanigans and electoral fraud perpetrated in the 1st referendum.
Boris touched, as all Conservatives do, on the myth of them clearing up the financial mess left by the last Labour government, neglecting to mention at all the global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the havoc it wreaked on almost all developed countries. But that's what you'd expect.
Conference speeches were liberally peppered with the word elite when referring to Remainers. Do they mean these chaps?
Perhaps they meant the intellectual elite who can see through myth, bluster, lies and false promises because they have a few brain cells.
|Cache||She said the Conservatives had changed irreversibly.|
|Cache||She said the Conservatives had changed irreversibly.|
Scheer's Very Bad Week, PPC At It Again and more -- The Left Chapter Canadian Election Round-up Week FourCache
The third was: PPC Goes Ever Lower, Climate Fails, Brownface Aftermath and more -- The Left Chapter Canadian Election Round-up Week Three
Scheer's very bad week
Andrew Scheer spent the last week doing his best to make sure that any residual fallout from the Trudeau brownface scandal would fade away with one self-inflicted wound after another.
First there is the bizarre and somewhat humorous revelation that he trumped up his credentials as an insurance broker. Of all the many things one could fudge about on a "resume" for public office this has to be one of the most flatline and boring bourgeois options to pick.
Then came the French language TV debate where it was hard to pick a winner amidst the deadening boredom, but very easy to pick a loser that being Scheer. He performed poorly and was unusually wooden even by his standards and seemed terribly evasive on the issue of abortion rights. While during the debate itself he refused to state his personal views on abortion -- even though they are widely known -- he did tell everyone what they already know the next day. Really makes his "personally pro-life but will not reopen the debate if elected PM" line sound even less trustworthy.
This was only compounded by his apparent inability to name for a reporter "a single policy in your platform that you believe shows that you do support women’s rights?”.
Finally comes the revelation that Scheer holds American citizenship. This in-and-of-itself would really be no big deal -- not sure why anyone would have a problem with someone having dual citizenship -- were it not for the fact that he appeared to take issue with the former Governor General Michaelle Jean holding it in 2005.
Meanwhile Scheer tried to guard his right flank against the People's Party of Canada (PPC) with an appallingly reactionary pledge to cut foreign aid spending by 25 per cent.
For a laugh also see: The Conservatives Say Scheer Won The French Debate & Quebecers Are Ripping Apart The Post.
PPC on an ignorant roll
Last week we saw a number of examples of PPC bigotry and racism at work. Apparently the good folks in the party felt they did not want to let this momentum slip away!
Thus we learned that two PPC candidates tweeted a far right cartoon "of Jagmeet Singh wearing [a] turban with [a] bomb on it". Despite this being clearly racist -- and despite Singh having been the target of racism on a public street related to his turban in Montreal this week -- neither one has been dropped by Bernier.
Just to make sure everyone knows which side he is on, Bernier also retweeted this fake poster approvingly:
Thanks Max. There might have been a few folks left who were under the illusion you were against fascism.
See also: Violent clashes break out at Maxime Bernier event in Hamilton
Not to be outdone...
Of course, the BQ would not want the PPC to hog the nativist spotlight in Quebec now would they?
Yes, the tweet actually calls for people to choose women and men who "are like them" and then ends by saying "Tomorrow belongs to you"!!!
Now, presumably they were hearkening back to the old PQ slogan of "Demain nous appartient", but given the rest of the statement it reminded a lot of people more of this:
When a party says it is not on the left...I take them at their word:
One headline captures why when it comes to climate change, despite all the progressive rhetoric, the Liberals are a joke.
Other notable stories:
Green party proposes a 'robot tax' when companies replace workers with machines
LOL!: He thought he was a candidate for the Marijuana Party. He was wrong
Communist candidate on the ballot in Nanaimo-Ladysmith
Communist Party leader says Canada is ‘ripe for socialism’
'Willing to be honest': Central Nova Communist candidate Chris Frazer says party will seek to address real needs
We Asked Candidates in Climate-Exposed Ridings for Their Emergency Plans
NEO-NAZI PARTY ACTIVE IN SCARBOROUGH
Manning Centre a main financial backer for network of ‘Proud’ Facebook pages
See also: PPC Goes Ever Lower, Climate Fails, Brownface Aftermath and more -- The Left Chapter Canadian Election Round-up Week Three
MAGA Hat Wearers Harass the Elderly (Kidding, It Was Antifa)
Antifa's special brand of bullying madness has arrived in full force in Canada. Left-wing thugs can be seen on video chanting, "Nazi scum! Off our streets! Nazi scum! Off our streets!" at an elderly couple trying to do nothing more than use a public crosswalk. As you can see, the woman can apparently get around only with the aid of a walker, yet still poses some kind of threat to Antifa.
The reason for Antifa's appearance was to "protest" an event at Mohawk College sponsored by Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, and American libertarian political commentator Dave Rubin.
ASIDE: Pardon the scare quotes above, but a in my mind it isn't a protest when you're there to harass private citizens. That's nothing better than a temper tantrum at best.
The local Hamilton Spectator reports that more than 100 Antifa showed up at the sold-out event. The school allowed Sunday's show to go on, despite "concerns" raised by various students and faculty members' about PPC's supposed "far-right" agenda.
Bernier is a former Canadian cabinet member under PM Stephen Harper's Conservative party government, but left to form the PPC last year. Bernier complained that the Conservatives had grown too "intellectually and morally corrupt" to take on "extreme multiculturalism," which he believes creates division among Canadians.
Sunday's event sold out the 1,000-seat McIntyre Art Centre at $50 per ticket. Not a bad showing at a school of 30,000 students, and the extra security the administration had to provide wasn't to keep the conservatives and libertarians in line.
Meanwhile in Seattle, Major League Soccer caved to Antifa hooligans, agreeing to allow the black flag to fly during a Seattle Sounders games at CenturyLink, and elsewhere.
Give in to thugs, get more thuggery.
I was about to say things are going to get ugly, but they already have. The question is, how much uglier we'll let things get before the inevitable backlash.
Another false accusation of abuse from a female
It's been a running gag at Instapundit for years now that if it weren't for fake hate crimes, there'd be hardly any hate crimes at all. So it probably shouldn't come as a huge surprise to learn that yet another fake hate crime allegation has been proven false.
It was all over the major papers late last week, when 12-year-old Amari Allen, a black student, claimed that three white boys held her down and forcibly cut some of her dreadlocks at their Christian school.
Wiser bloggers demurred from covering the story until more information could come to light.
Yet the NYT and other outlets breathlessly reported the sixth-grader's accusation in a phone interview. "They put me on the ground," she claimed. "One of them put my hands behind my back. One put his hands over my mouth. One cut my hair. They were saying that my hair was ugly, that it was nappy." And Twitter was all lit up because of the supposed Mike Pence connection -- his wife Karen teaches at the Immanuel Christian School where the assault never happened.
DailyKos is on it! Let's see if A) They retract this tweet, or B) double down on stupid.
No, they didn't. The girl recanted. Nevertheless, school principal Stephen Danish released a statement this morning bemoaning the "tremendous pain for the victims and the hurt on both sides of this conflict."
Both sides? Did Allen's feelings get hurt when she had to retract her false accusation?
Well, we almost have all the daylight we need on this one, thanks. I do have one question still unanswered: Will Allen face anything like the discipline the boys would have (and should have) if her accusations hadn't been lies?
Who Cares About You?
Walter E. Williams
During my student days at a UCLA economics department faculty/graduate student coffee hour in the 1960s, I was chatting with Professor Armen Alchian, probably the greatest microeconomic theory economist of the 20th century. I was trying to impress Alchian with my knowledge of statistical type I and type II errors. I explained that unlike my wife, who assumed that everyone was her friend until they prove differently, my assumption was everyone was an enemy until they proved otherwise. The result: My wife’s vision maximized the number of her friends but maximized her chances of betrayal. My vision minimized my chances of betrayal at a cost of minimizing the number of my friends.
Alchian, donning a mischievous smile asked, “Williams, have you considered a third alternative, namely, that people don’t give a damn about you one way or another?” Initially, I felt a bit insulted, and our conversation didn’t go much further, but that was typical of Alchian — saying something profound, perhaps controversial, without much comment and letting you think it out.
Years later, I gave Alchian’s third alternative considerable thought and concluded that he was right. The most reliable assumption, in terms of the conduct of one’s life, is to assume that people don’t care about you one way or another. It’s an error to generalize that people are friends or enemies, or that people are out to either help you or hurt you. To put it more crudely, as Alchian did, people don’t give a damn about you one way or another.
Let’s apply this argument to issues of race. Listening to some people, one might think that white people are engaged in an ongoing secret conspiracy to undermine the achievement and well-being of black people. Their evidence is low black academic achievement and high rates of black poverty, unemployment and incarceration. For some, racism is the root cause of most black problems including the unprecedentedly high black illegitimacy rate and family breakdown.
Are white people obsessed with and engaged in a conspiracy against black people? Here’s an experiment. Walk up to the average white person and ask, “How many minutes today have you been thinking about black people?” If the person isn’t a Klansman or a gushing do-gooder liberal, his answer would probably be zero minutes. If you asked him whether he’s a part of a conspiracy to undermine the achievement and well-being of black people, he’d probably look at you as if you were crazy. By the same token, if a person asked me: “Williams, how many minutes today have you been thinking about white people?” My answer would probably be, “Not even a nanosecond.” Because people don’t care about you one way or another doesn’t mean they wish you good will, ill will or no will. They just don’t give a damn.
What are the implications of the people-don’t-care vision of how the world works? A major implication is that one’s destiny, for the most part, is in one’s hands. How you make it in this world depends more on what you do as opposed to whether people like or dislike you. Black politicians, civil rights leaders and white liberals have peddled victimhood to black people, teaching them that racism is pervasive and no amount of individual effort can overcome racist barriers. Peddling victimhood is not new. Booker T. Washington said: “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” In an 1865 speech to the Anti-Slavery Society in Boston, abolitionist Frederick Douglass said that people ask: “‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!” Or as Patrick Moynihan urged a century later in a 1970 memo to President Richard Nixon, “The time may have come when the issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect.’”
Teaching girls to fear boys
I’ve long been contacted by parents and teachers concerned about anti-male bias in school curriculums – I’ve made a previous video with an Australian teacher about this issue.
So, I was really delighted to be contacted by a South Australian teacher, Christopher Vogel, who told me he’d just finished his Masters thesis showing his state’s school curriculum is systematically teaching children that males are the abusers with females as their innocent victims.
Christopher analyzed Keeping Safe, the mandatory child protection curriculum taught in all public schools in SA from kindergarten to year 12.
He talks to me about his fascinating results in my new video.
I hope you will help me promote this important research. We need to expose this education department for teaching girls to fear boys.
His research reveals systemic bias against boys. The curriculum provides 84 examples of males being aggressive to females (including child rape and abuse) and only one instance of a female being aggressive to a male (looking in his room without permission). See examples in the graphic below.
The introduction to the curriculum reveals the clear bias against boys, quoting from feminist advocacy groups like White Ribbon which are known to distort violence statistics, presenting only males as aggressors. Here’s a breakdown of the proportion of male to female aggressors in the introduction.
The bias against boys increases with the older age groups, as you can see here.
It wasn’t so long ago that our society realised, to our shame, that we’d failed victims of sexual abuse by choosing not to hear their stories. But now we have an entire school curriculum which deliberately ignores male victims of abuse, denying their experiences and making them reluctant to seek help. In Australia we have recently had hundreds of victims of child sexual abuse paraded in the media, as part of the Royal Commission into institutional sexual abuse. It was startling how many of these were boys.
It’s just one example of the dangerous grip of feminist ideology on our institutions, including school curriculum. South Australia certainly isn’t the only state where this is happening. I hope this inspires parents and teachers to check out whether children in your schools are being fed similarly dangerous nonsense. I’ll post Christopher’s thesis on my website to give the detailed information you might need to ask tough questions. You’ll be pleased to hear Kit received an HD for his thesis and was asked to present his results to senior education bureaucrats. We need to be writing to education ministers across the country seeking more balanced treatment of our children.
Here are some of the curriculum’s examples of male aggression:
Via email from Bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
|Cache||The Conservatives on Monday issued a written statement saying the party would establish a national autism strategy with $50 million in funding over five years. “At present, across the country, provinces and territories struggle to meet the growing...|
Impotent Andrew Scheer Fumbling as Liberals Flirt with Majority Win. By Jamie Gilcig #CDNPOLI 100719Cache
|The election that nobody seems to care about trundles on. This will be an historic loss if Andrew Scheer gives The Trudeau Liberals a majority win. With a history of broken election promises and gross hypocrisy the Conservatives simply have failed to deliver a strong game with much of the blame landing on Mr. Scheer. […]|
As the term begins, the conservatives are sharpening their knives—and LGBTQ rights, abortion, and gun control are all on the chopping block.
The post SCOTUS Is Back in Session and Cruelty Is on the Docket appeared first on The Nation.
OTTAWA—After a chaotic six-way election debate, are you left hungry for substantive answers from the parties?
With no knockout blows and a format that left lots to be desired, it was hard going if you were a voter.
But the outcome of the Oct. 21 federal election will lead to a new government one way or another. It will be formed either around a majority cabinet or perhaps by a coalition that would support a minority government, even if on an issue-by-issue basis.
So what might the first six months — the legislative session from January to June 2020 — of a new government look like?
The Star does some crystal-ball-gazing to guide you, assuming — as all public polls suggest is the case — the most likely scenario is a majority Liberal or Conservative government, or a minority government.
Today, climate change and the environment.
Under a Liberal government, the federal carbon price will go up in April 2020, from $20 a tonne to $30 a tonne (or about 7 cents a litre of gasoline).
Starting in January, the fuel levy portion of the price will apply in Alberta, along with the four other provinces — Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan — where the pricing system as a whole is in place.
At tax time, most of the money collected from the levy — 90 per cent — will be rebated to households in those provinces. In Ontario, the projected rebate for a family of four will rise from $307 in 2019 to $451 as the price jumps to $30 per tonne.
Meanwhile, heavy emitters — the oil and gas sector, mining, cement, and more — will start paying by mid-2020 through an “output based pricing system” that sets standards for each major industry. Most sectors have standards set at 80 per cent of average emissions intensity in their industry. Those that emit more than the standard will pay; those that emit less can sell credits to peers.
The Liberals plan to bring in regulations — delayed by three years in 2017 — to restrict methane emissions from oil and gas operations, starting in January.
In the early months, the government would continue public consultations on clean fuel standards for transportation, home heating, and industry. But the full standards won’t be in place until 2023.
The Liberals propose a 10-year tree-planting program and may begin budgeting funds — say about $300 million a year — in the spring. The party says it would cut corporate income taxes in half for clean tech businesses; give Canadians interest-free loans and grants to retrofit homes or build new ones that are carbon neutral; and pass a law to ensure workers transitioning out of the fossil-fuel sector are supported and retrained for new jobs.
The party could set up its promised expert panel to guide Ottawa on five-year plans to reduce emissions so that Canada does even better than its targeted reductions under the international Paris Agreement — 30 per cent below 2005 emission levels by 2030 — and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
There would be no immediate ban on single-use plastics. Trudeau has said the Liberals’ proposed ban won’t kick in until “as early as” 2021.
The first thing a Conservative government led by Andrew Scheer would do is scrap the federal carbon price. He would ditch the Liberal’s incoming fuel standards and replace them with something the party hasn’t yet described.
Together, those two measures were projected by the federal government to reduce emissions by at least 70 or 80 million tonnes per year by 2030 — about a third of what Canada needs to slash from 2005 levels to hit the Paris target. It’s unclear how the Conservatives would achieve those reductions, although Scheer says his plan is at the least Canada’s “best chance” of reaching its Paris goal.
The Conservatives would replace the federal carbon price with a requirement to pay for emissions that only applies to heavy polluters. Facilities that pump out more than 40,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year would pay unspecified amounts into clean technology research and development. It is unclear how much large emitters will be required to pay, starting when, or how many megatonnes of GHGs are targeted for reduction. So it’s impossible to say how stringent — or effective — this will be.
The Conservatives promise a tax credit worth up to $2,850 for greener home renovations, a $230-million green technology innovation fund for the private sector, and tax refunds on income generated from green tech patented in Canada. There is no timeline for these policies. But we might expect some answers in a Conservative budget in the spring.
In order to meet Canada’s Paris targets, the Conservatives would try to convince other countries like China to give Canada credit for emissions reductions that result from the replacement of heavy-polluting energy sources like coal with cleaner energy imports from Canada, like liquified natural gas.
A MINORITY SITUATION
On climate change, every party but the far right People’s Party agrees that climate change is a real, and human-caused challenge that needs to be taken seriously.
A Liberal minority could seek support from the New Democrats or Greens or even the Bloc Québécois — but these parties say Justin Trudeau would have to up his environmental game.
That’s because the NDP and the Greens have promised more stringent, legislated, emissions-reductions targets, in line with what scientists say is required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.
The NDP and the Greens back a price on carbon emissions. But they’d be tougher on major industrial polluters, however in different ways, and the Greens are the only party that
pledged to keep hiking the carbon price $10 per year beyond 2022, when it hits $50 per tonne.
The NDP and the Greens oppose the Liberals’ approval and expansion of the Trans-Mountain pipeline, but only Green leader Elizabeth May has said it’s a deal-breaker for a minority government.
The Greens want to stop all oil and gas imports to Canada and end all new fossil fuel development, including the $40-billion liquid natural gas megaproject approved last year on B.C.’s coast, as well as a national ban on fracking.
While it’s hard to imagine the Liberals agreeing to these more aggressive measures in the short term, Trudeau’s team agrees with the NDP and Greens on the push for zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs). All three parties are pushing subsidies to encourage the purchase of ZEVs, as well as targets to ensure they make up a larger and larger share of annual vehicles sales in the coming years.
A Conservative minority government would likely struggle to find a party to support its climate plan.
The NDP has already ruled out supporting Scheer based on his failure to support LGBTQ rights, and the Greens say they would only support a party with a real climate action plan.
However, there could be some areas of agreement. The Greens and the Conservatives both propose national energy retrofit programs for residential and commercial buildings, for example. They also have proposed creating an “energy corridor” that would serve as a cross-Canada right-of-way for energy transmission — though Scheer envisions oil and gas pipelines along the route, while May is unequivocal that all energy for Canada’s electricity grid needs to be fully renewable by 2030.
Tonda MacCharles is an Ottawa-based reporter covering federal politics. Follow her on Twitter: @tondamacc
Alex Ballingall is an Ottawa-based reporter covering national politics. Follow him on Twitter: @aballinga